Discuss the pros and cons of gambling and state what the California Court of Appeals ruled regarding the treatment of gambling on credit

Answer 1

Almost all states permit some form of wagering. Supporters of gambling say that casinos create jobs and steady income, provide money for the state, and take business away from organized crime. Opponents argue that naive citizens inevitably lose money they can ill afford to forfeit, and that addicted gamblers destroy their families and weaken the fabric of communities. Many states do not allow gambling on credit. The California Court of Appeals in Metropolitan Creditors Service of Sacramento v. Sadri, states, "There is a special reason for treating gambling on credit differently from gambling itself. Having lost his or her cash, the pathological gambler will continue to play on credit, if extended, in an attempt to win back the losses. This is why enforcement of gambling debts has always been against public policy in California and should remain so, regardless of shifting public attitudes about gambling itself. If Californians want to play, so be it. But the law should not invite them to play themselves into debt. The judiciary cannot protect pathological gamblers from themselves, but we can refuse to participate in their financial ruin."